The primary source is the legislative document presenting the case of Dred Scott v. John Sandford, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1857. It reveals some of the legal implications related to the court’s decision on the possibility of slaves’ participation in the political life of the country and captures the broad historical context of slavery. The document serves as a source of variable information on the discourse related to slavery, citizenship, sovereignty, freedom, and fundamental human rights, which prevailed in the mid-19th century. It also reveals the deeply embedded nature of white supremacy and racism in the United States.
The intended audience encompasses those who were the stakeholders of Scott’s lawsuit and the general public who could be affected by the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision. As it is an official document, the author restrains from any personifications and focuses primarily on the legislative perspective of the issues. Its rigid narrative structure, clear claims, and consistent argumentation provide an opportunity to analyze explicit and implicit connotations provided in the case.
Hence, Taney represents the legislative branch of the state’s authority, and his opinion reveals the existing viewpoint of white political leaders on slavery and the members of the African American community in the mid-19th century. In this way, the document not only reflects the prevailing white supremacy perspective of the era but also narrates about the division of power between the State and the federal government.
The main concern that Chief Justice Taney presents to the audience is whether black people are considered as citizens of the United States. In other words, the question is whether they are subject to the provisions of the Constitution and can be acknowledged as a political entity with the corresponding responsibilities of living in a sovereign country. These considerations are connected to their freedoms, which should be protected accordingly. Taney responds to it by stating that neither the “legislation and histories of the times” nor the Constitution accept black Africans and their progeny as the citizens of the United States (“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Dred Scott’s Lawsuit for His Freedom”). This stance is underpinned not only by the reference to the Constitution but also by the wording of the document.
The first sentence of the document sufficiently explains Taney’s concern. His question is: “Can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States…” (“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Dred Scott’s Lawsuit for His Freedom”). Critical analysis of this sentence greatly contributes to the understanding of the prejudices and stigma associated with the authorities on the highest federal level. For instance, words “negro,” “imported,” and “slaves” objectify human beings as they refer to the derogative wording of the idea.
From the beginning of the text, Taney diminishes the African descendants’ rights and eliminates further opportunities for unprejudiced thinking. Looking at the historical context of the time when the document was written, the epoch reflects the plantation generation of the slavery history. During this period, slaves were perceived as human machines working for white masters’ plantations, and harsh treatments from masters were prevalent. Therefore, it was reasonable for Taney, as a white authority perspective, to consider black slaves as “a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race” (“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Dred Scott’s Lawsuit for His Freedom”). In this way, his views on the matter correspond to the principal notions of the time.
Another example of the perceived inferiority of the people of African descent in the text is the concern of Taney regarding the lack of difference between the slaves and their progeny. In the second paragraph, he expresses the idea that a person is defined not by his qualities or other circumstances contributing to his or her desire to find a place in American society. Instead, he claims that the origin and the history of slavery are emphasized as decisive factors.
By saying that the emancipated descendants of slaves and the people born of “parents who had become free before their birth,” Taney states that these categories of citizens are no different to the general public of the time (“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Dred Scott’s Lawsuit for His Freedom”). From this perspective, their alleged limitations are related not to their ancestry but the unwillingness of white people to deal with them in any aspect.
Then, Taney highlights the Constitution’s significance by adding a sense of sacredness and higher power while referring to the political community. Taney refers to the two clauses in the 1787 United States Constitution to support his argument that the black slaves cannot be viewed as citizens of the United States. In Article I, Section 9 of the 1787 US Constitution, states were given the right to import slaves and impose taxes on them. Meanwhile, according to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, the African people had to be taken back to their owners even though they escaped to the free states (“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Dred Scott’s Lawsuit for His Freedom”).
These clauses enabled white owners to buy black people as slaves and gave them the authority to possess Africans as their property. This situation allowed them to claim their inalienable rights to managing the slaves in a way they see fit. Overall, these clauses only underscored the authority or sovereignty of the white population over the black slaves while the acceptance of the African people as citizens of the United States was absent.
The perception of the issue based on the Constitution and the necessity to keep the inferior position of African descendants are added by the practical inability to raise them to the rank of full-fledged citizens. It is defined by the slight difference highlighted by Taney in response to the case. Thus, in the third paragraph, he argues that the definition of a “sovereign citizen,” in contrast to a “citizen,” implies a share of responsibility for the future of American society (“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Dred Scott’s Lawsuit for His Freedom”).
By stating this, he makes it clear that the white population is not ready to grant such an important opportunity to this group of peoples. This circumstance was conditional upon their absence of experience in life and the continuous existence under the limitations imposed by white men. In this way, it can be concluded that the alleged inferiority of African slaves was not the only factor affecting the unwillingness of the government to recognize their citizenship. Complemented by the specified conditions, it was only one side of the problem connected to the inability of black people to make independent decisions.
In the text, Taney also defines the difference between the State and the Union. He highlights that the stance of one state does not represent the position of the federal government on the matter. He says that “it does not by any mean follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States…”. Furthermore, he extends his argument claiming that each state has its own stance on applying the provisions of the Constitution.
Thus, he asserts that it is impossible “to put in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endure him with the tall rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent” (“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Dred Scott’s Lawsuit for His Freedom”). This perception of the situation by Taney reflects the unwillingness of the government to take responsibility for any major reforms in this regard, thereby choosing to neglect the former slaves’ struggles than evoke others’ concerns.
To summarize, the historical recognition of black slaves as an inferior population group subordinate to white people was confirmed by court cases. Alongside the clauses of the 1787 United States Constitution regarding citizenship and corresponding rights, these considerations gave Taney a feasible reason to form superiority of white men over the black people. They also allowed him to deny Dred Scott and the rest of the African slaves as citizens of the United States, which was underpinned by their inability to make decisions for the benefit of the country. By differentiating a single state and the United States as a whole, Taney made it hard for the African descendants to gain freedom and become full-fledged members of American society.
Work Cited
“U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Dred Scott’s Lawsuit for His Freedom”. Web.